kortefandomcom-20200214-history
G.R. No. 194962. January 27, 2016
G.R. No. 194962. January 27, 2016 is a decision 2016 made by the Supreme Court. Case Details *Cagayan Economic Zone Authority Vs. Meridien Vista Gaming Corporation *G.R. No. 194962. January 27, 2016 *Justice xxx *http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/61731 *xxx Issue *WHEN IT RULED THAT PETITIONER CEZA FAILED TO SHOW THE SPECIFIC ACTS COMMITTED BY HON. JUDGE ZALDIVAR THAT CONSTITUTE GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION. *WHEN IT RULED THAT PETITIONER CEZA IS BOUND BY THE MISTAKES AND NEGLIGENCE OF ATTY. BANIAGA. *WHEN IT RULED THAT PETITIONER CEZA's 15-DAY PERIOD TO APPEAL IS COUNTED FROM ATTY. BANIAGA'S RECEIPT OF THE 30 OCTOBER 2009 DECISION. *WHEN IT RULED THAT UNDER REPUBLIC ACT (R.A.) NO. 7922, PETITIONER CEZA HAS THE POWER TO OPERATE ON ITS OWN OR LICENSE TO OTHERS, JAI-ALAI. Info In highly meritorious cases, however, the Court may depart from the application of this rule such as when the negligence of the counsel is so gross, reckless, and inexcusable that the client is deprived of due process of law; when adherence to the general rule would result in the outright deprivation of the clients' property; or when the interests of justice so require. In the case of People's Homesite and Housing Corporation v. Tiongco, the Court stated the reason therefor. Thus: *There should be no dispute regarding the doctrine that normally notice to counsel is notice to parties, and that such doctrine has beneficient effects upon the prompt dispensation of justice.' Its application to a given case, however, should be looked into and adopted, according to the surrounding circumstances; otherwise, in the court's desire to make a short cut of the proceedings, it might foster, wittingly or unwittingly, dangerous collusions to the detriment of justice. '''It would then be easy for one lawyer to sell one's right down the river, by just alleging that he just forgot every process of the court affecting his clients, because he was so busy. Under this circumstance, one should not insist that a notice to such irresponsible lawyer is also a notice to his clients. Potential Liability of Atty. Baniaga *The records disclose that on January 27, 2011, the OGCC dismissed Atty. Baniaga for "Serious Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct, Gross Neglect of Duty, Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service, and Violation of Reasonable Office Rules and Regulations. We find the exceptional circumstances in ''Bayog to be present in the case now before us. The party in the present case, the NFA, is a government agency that could rightly rely solely on its legal officers to vigilantly protect its interests. The NFA's lawyers were not only its counsel, they were its employees tasked to advance the agency's legal interests. Further, the NFA's lawyers acted negligently several times in handling the case that it appears deliberate on their part. * First, Atty. xxx caused the dismissal of the NFA's complaint against Lasala by negligently and repeatedly failing to attend the hearing for the presentation of the NFA's evidence-in-chief. Consequently, the NFA lost its chance to recover from Lasala the employee benefits that it allegedly shouldered as indirect employer. * Atty. xxx never bothered to provide any valid excuse for this crucial omission on his part. Parenthetically, this was not the first time Atty. xxx prejudiced the NFA; he did the same when he failed to file a motion for reconsideration and an appeal in a prior 1993 case where Lasala secured a judgment of P34,500,229.67 against the NFA. * For these failures, Atty. xxx merely explained that the NFA's copy of the adverse decision was lost and was only found after the lapse of the period for appeal. Under these circumstances, the NFA was forced to file an administrative complaint against Atty. xxx for his string of negligent acts. * Atty. xxx, Atty. xxx's successor in handling the case, notably did not cross-examine Lasala's witnesses, and did not present controverting evidence to disprove and counter Lasala's counterclaim. Atty. xxx further prejudiced the NFA when he likewise failed to file a motion for reconsideration or an appeal from the trial court's September 2, 2002 decision, where Lasala was awarded the huge amount of P52,788,970.50, without any convincing evidence to support it. * When asked to justify his failure, Atty. xxx, like Atty. xxx, merely mentioned that the NFA's copy of the decision was lost and that he only discovered it when the period for appeal had already lapsed. Decision WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The August 13, 2010 and December 9, 2010 Resolutions of the Court of Appeals, affirming the March 4, 2010 Resolution of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 7, Aparri, Cagayan , are SET ASIDE. The Petition for Relief from Judgment filed by petitioner Cagayan Economic Zone Authority is GRANTED. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals is ordered to give due course to its Notice of Appeal. Trivia * Lawyer's probable liability. Category:Decisions 2016 Category:January 2016